xulrunner-1.9 accompanying Firefox 3.0RC2 cannot be installed: dependency problems

[Bruce Miller]

Binary package hint: firefox-3.0

running Kubuntu Hardy Heron updated to 20080603

the version of xulrunner-1.9 released with Firefox 3.0RC2 (xulrunner-1.9_1.9~rc2+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~fta4~hardy_amd64.deb on my system) breaks yelp. I have no particular need for yelp and forced the installation of this version of xulrunner-1.9 with a sudo dpkg -i deconfigure command.

Cannot simply remove yelp because several applications depend on it: including gnome-core, epiphany, evolution, grip

Deconfiguring yelp means that I can no longer perform either a "safe" upgrade nor a "dist-upgrade", because both now insist on removing both xulrunner-1.9 and firefox 3.0. I can do without yelp, but not without firefox.

I am not sure whether this bug should be filed against yelp or against xulrunner-1.9.

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

Huh? I thought I was filing this bug against xulrunner-1.9. Launchpad reports it filed against firefox-3.0. non capisco.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:57:23AM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
> Huh? I thought I was filing this bug against xulrunner-1.9. Launchpad
> reports it filed against firefox-3.0. non capisco.
>

Dont use fta archive (its not official). either use the archive of
mozillateam or hardy/hardy-updates/hardy-proposed

 status invalid

 - Alexander

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

What then is the proper proceduore for reporting problems with packages in the fta archives? I am (and was) perfectly aware that these are not official releases, but if there is no way of reporting problems with these packages, then what is the point of inviting users to test them?

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:14:05PM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
> What then is the proper proceduore for reporting problems with packages
> in the fta archives? I am (and was) perfectly aware that these are not
> official releases, but if there is no way of reporting problems with
> these packages, then what is the point of inviting users to test them?
>

We dont encourage nor invite users to use those archives. If you found
that somewhere please let us know, so we can fix that. Those packages
are ment for users and developers that want always the latest and can
deal and accept some breakage.

Anyway, to answer your question: report issues with those in
#ubuntu-mozillateam channel or mozilla team mailing list.

 - Alexander

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

Alexander, I have no wish to indulge in a long argument, but I would urge you not to turn aside comments and reports because they come in from strangers.

I bought my first computer in 1982: an Osborne 1A with CP/M 2.2. I have years of experience and comfort at a command line. I am not a developer and definitely do not "do code"; on the other hand, I like to run the absolute latest versions and have the experience to break betas more thoroughly than most beta testers and lots of tolerance for and experience with the resulting breakage.

But I felt obliged to report this particular problem, because I had gone as far as I was comfortable with "sudo dpkg -i force-<foo>", but could not install one of the "rc" packages that I was trying to test without risking more generalized system breakage than made sense.

BTW, this evening I brought in the latest build of xulrunner-1.9 (1.9~rc2+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~fta5~hardy) and am pleased to report that it upgraded without conflict or any other incident (except for a post-install glitch in evolution which depends on yelp which depends on xulrunner-1.9, but that is far too remote from what we are discussing :-) ).

Thanks for your comments

Bruce

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 04:37:40AM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
> Alexander, I have no wish to indulge in a long argument, but I would
> urge you not to turn aside comments and reports because they come in
> from strangers.
>
> I bought my first computer in 1982: an Osborne 1A with CP/M 2.2. I have
> years of experience and comfort at a command line. I am not a developer
> and definitely do not "do code"; on the other hand, I like to run the
> absolute latest versions and have the experience to break betas more
> thoroughly than most beta testers and lots of tolerance for and
> experience with the resulting breakage.
>
> But I felt obliged to report this particular problem, because I had gone
> as far as I was comfortable with "sudo dpkg -i force-<foo>", but could
> not install one of the "rc" packages that I was trying to test without
> risking more generalized system breakage than made sense.

I love to get feedback from experienced users. For non-official
packages you should use the mailing list and the irc channel to get
them to our attention. We publish those to get early feedback, so we
will be happy to receive such feedback. Just try to keep it out of the
bug system :).

>
> BTW, this evening I brought in the latest build of xulrunner-1.9
> (1.9~rc2+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~fta5~hardy) and am pleased to report that it
> upgraded without conflict or any other incident (except for a post-
> install glitch in evolution which depends on yelp which depends on
> xulrunner-1.9, but that is far too remote from what we are discussing
> :-) ).

What issue are you seeing with evolution upgrade/postinst?

 - Alexander

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

> What issue are you seeing with evolution upgrade/postinst?

Errors were encountered while processing:
 evolution
 evolution-plugins
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
A package failed to install. Trying to recover:
Setting up evolution (2.22.2-0ubuntu1.2) ...
/usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas:5128: parser error : Input is not proper UTF-8, indicate encoding !
Bytes: 0xB0 0xAD 0xE0 0xB0
�కక ID లద మరయకనమము పరరం`
                                                                               ^
dpkg: error processing evolution (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of evolution-plugins:
 evolution-plugins depends on evolution (>= 2.22.2); however:
  Package evolution is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing evolution-plugins (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:37:16PM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
> > What issue are you seeing with evolution upgrade/postinst?
>
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> evolution
> evolution-plugins
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> A package failed to install. Trying to recover:
> Setting up evolution (2.22.2-0ubuntu1.2) ...
> /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas:5128: parser error : Input is not proper UTF-8, indicate encoding !
> Bytes: 0xB0 0xAD 0xE0 0xB0
> �కక ID లద మరయకనమము పరరం`
> ^

dpkg -S /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas

??

 - Alexander

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

bruce@Xenophon:~$ dpkg -S /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas
evolution: /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas
bruce@Xenophon:~$

Do you have evolution installed?

I inspected the file visually and the error appeared in the translation of a config string into "BN_in" which, IIRC, stands for "Bengali_India".

Evolution had been automatically installed and I might someday examine it. But for now, it was safe to purge and to re-install. The error did not come back after the re-install, but the gconf file is definitely there again.

Best regards
Bruce

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Sack <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 1:48:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Bug 237518] Re: xulrunner-1.9 accompanying Firefox 3.0RC2 cannot be installed: dependency problems

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:37:16PM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
> > What issue are you seeing with evolution upgrade/postinst?
>
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> evolution
> evolution-plugins
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> A package failed to install. Trying to recover:
> Setting up evolution (2.22.2-0ubuntu1.2) ...
> /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas:5128: parser error : Input is not proper UTF-8, indicate encoding !
> Bytes: 0xB0 0xAD 0xE0 0xB0
> �కక ID లద మరయకనమము పరరం`
> ^

dpkg -S /usr/share/gconf/schemas/apps_evolution_shell.schemas

??

- Alexander

--
xulrunner-1.9 accompanying Firefox 3.0RC2 cannot be installed: dependency problems
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237518
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.